Family Farming Wrecked by Biodiversity Protection™

New regulations from 2034 will ruin family farming for good and push the pseudo-collectivisation of agriculture to new heights

Editorial notice: an earlier version had a slightly different header.

Meet Oddvar Vigdal, a family farmer in one of Norway’s more remote areas (I don’t live that far away) whose farmstead has been in the possession of his family since 1604. That is, he’s the 31st generation running the farm.

Oddvar Vigdal has a big problem now, though, and that problem are drastically increased regulations with respect to livestock farming, envisaged to enter into force in 2034. Basically, these require small farmers to have up-to-date equipment and facilities, as well as more livestock (more on that below)—or call it quits.

These conditions are typically ‘implicit’ as any farmer may wish to disregard them, but then he or she cannot sell the products to state-guaranteed prices to state-affiliated slaughterhouses; in addition, once one meets certain requirements, farm subsidies (sic) may be obtained from the state.

Farmers are, for all intents and purposes, the last segment of the population who could, technically, retain a modicum of independence from the gov’t, hence the latter’s incessant war against them:

Meanwhile, the War on Farmers Continues, if only Because Repression is Existential for the Blob

I found the below story in my local newspaper, and I trust you might find it enraging, disheartening, and infuriating at the same time, too.

(Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.)

Also, do click on the source link and marvel at the nice area.

---

‘I understand the need to protect nature, but there must be a balance’

By Svein Erik Hovland, Sogn Avis, 14 Feb. 2025 [source; archive]

This farm has been in continuous operation since 1604. I am the 31st generation of Vigdal farmers.

There’s something about this place. We’ve had a good time here. Not in the sense that we had a lot of money, but we’ve had it good. It was a good place to grow up.

Oddvar Vigdal took his partner Inger Marie Ensrud with him and moved home to run the Vigdal farm in 2012. By then he had lived ten years away—in Sogndal, Årdal and Austlandet [the Oslo metro area].

His ties to Vigdal have always been strong, so it was natural to come home at the age of 25. The desire to take over the family farm has always been there, and throughout his childhood he and his brothers were actively involved in the business.

In the same way as the three boys who have arrived at Vigdal since 2012. One of them may want to become the 32nd generation of farmers.

‘But right now it doesn’t look good’, says the last farmer in Vigdalen.

Staying in Vigdalen may not be for everyone.

First you drive 14 kilometres up Jostedalen. This is followed by several kilometres of what must be the steepest and most winding road in Sogn. Not to mention a pretty spectacular tunnel.

But this is where they want to live.

We’re lucky. We have three fit and healthy boys, and she’s got a job and settled in well.

I was a bit excited about that.

Must Have More Livestock

‘When I took over, the hope was to develop this further. That was the dream’, says Oddvar.

It's not the biggest farm in the world, but it’s enough to get by with the farm and Inger Marie's job.

We plan to have 15-16 calvings in September/October, and then we milk until the end of June before sending the cows to the mountains in July and August.

He can keep them in the old barn, which was renovated in the mid-80s, but that’s not the issue.

At least for a while.

But from 2034 onwards, there will be new requirements, including free range animal husbandry, and in order to meet them, the herd will have to get bigger.

I have to have more animals to stay in the game, plain and simple. The number of cattle will probably have to double.

Dependent on Roads

More animals require more grazing areas, and it is by no means the case that pastures are a scarce resource in the valley.

On the contrary.

It is said that after the [second world] war there were over 1,000 grazing animals in Vigdalen. Pastures are our main resource, our gold, but I have to get there.

And this is where Oddvar has hit a wall.

You need a certain infrastructure if you want to increase the herd. We don’t have a farm road today, and we need it to be able to run a farm and run it economically.

We have to go further than Vårstølen, where both cabins and roads have been built. The area is not up for this kind of operation. We have to go past there and further up the valley. I’m dependent on getting that road.

[Building this road, however, was banned by the Breheimen National Park Board, and their reasoning (sic) is reproduced here]

The grounds for the decision are that the measure will result in damage to important conservation values in the area and that it will be contrary to the conservation objective [so, we made up a target, and you building a road is contrary to that objective: talk about reification]. The conditions in section 48, first paragraph of the Nature Diversity Act [orig. naturmangfaldlova] are therefore not met. Emphasis has also been placed on the fact that a licence could set an unfortunate precedent for similar applications in other protected areas.

‘Must be a balance’

The destination for the road, Vigdalsstølen, lies within the Vigdalen landscape conservation area. When Oddvar and the co-ownership [orig. sameiget] applied to build the road in 2017, they were rejected outright [as to co-ownership, it’s a common feature here: several farmers co-own usufruct rights to shared summer pastures, incl. grazing rights as well as the permission to build a cabin; it’s the same in my neck of the wook].

We were told that there was no point in appealing, because the appeal would also be rejected [see how the ‘rule of law™’ is weaponised?]

No appeal against the decision was ever sent.

‘I wanted to complain, but the majority of the co-ownership was against it’, he says.

In any case, Oddvar believes that the decision contradicts the promises they were given when the conservation area was established in 2009, and the intentions behind such an area:

At the time, it was said that conservation and businesses would be able to work together in the area. As I understand it, part of the reason it became a protected area and not a national park was so that farmers would have the opportunity to operate. That’s not how it turned out.

I understand that you have to protect nature. We must have a certain degree of protection, but there must be a balance. We’re not talking about drastic interventions, a good kilometre of road and a few fences. That’s not a lot to ask for [remember: building massive road projects isn’t a big deal, but a farmer building a dirt road is]

Will grow again

He points out that if he, who is the last farmer in the valley, leaves, there will be no one to preserve the cultural landscape at Vigdalsstølen [I live on a small farm not too far away from that area: if you don’t preserve the grasslands, it’ll be overgrown in a few years].

The landscape that is an important part of the protection basis.

It will grow back, unless it’s attacked with an axe and a chainsaw.

I respect the fact that we have to take care of nature. We must not destroy it for those who come after us, but we must be allowed to develop.

[here’s, in my opinion, a fundamental mis-understanding on part of both the powers-that-be and the farmer: virtually everything we see around us is human-modified ‘nature’, for better or worse, yet what the powers-that-be are doing is they’re picking winners and losers, and I’d argue that a farm is way less intrusive than, say, massive industrial developments…]

Foundations

Since 2017, there have been major changes in the national park management for Breheimen. They are therefore cautious about commenting on a matter that lies so far back in time [that is, 2009, to be precise]. The current manager of Breheimen, Eldrid Nedrelo, does not wish to comment as she no longer works in the national park management for this area. The new head of national park management, Aina-Elise Bolstad Stokkenes, does not wish to say anything about the case as she has not handled it [see, it’s all public money that’s spent on these ‘managers’ who get away with not wishing to comment on whatever for whatever reasons, because; it’s the perfect post-rational reasoning so common in Scandinavia: don’t offend anyone, and, if asked, deflect]

In the recommendation that forms the basis for the rejection, the following reasons are given, among others:

• Damage to conservation values: The measure would result in damage to important conservation values in the area, especially Quaternary geological deposits, which are important for understanding the history of glacial melting in Breheimen and Jostedalen [remember that the Quaternary era began 2.58m years ago, which of course questions the entire human-emissions-melt-glaciers narrative; read this article about smaller glaciers 1000-500 years ago in precisely the same area]

• Conflict with the conservation purpose: The measure would be in conflict with the conservation purpose of Vigdalen Landscape Protection Area, which is to preserve a natural and cultural landscape with ecological value, cultural value, and experience value [but if that last farmer can’t survive beyond 2034, who’s ensuring the continuation of the cultural landscape?]

• Unfortunate precedent: A licence could set an unfortunate precedent for similar applications in other protected areas [we’re not talking open-pit mining here, but a dirt road between a farm and summer pastures…].

[none of these items make much, if any, sense; but that’s not the point—it’s about ‘legitimacy by procedure’, as the late German legal/sociologist Niklas Luhmann (not a fan) called it, that is, ‘procedure instead of universal/objective truth’]

‘Risk of setting a precedent’

It is emphasised that agriculture is important to the area, and that having a road could have an impact on livestock farming and forest extraction.

‘…it is highly desirable to have grazing animals in the area with regard to the conservation objective of taking care of the cultural landscape,’ [the preservation board’s rejection] says.

However, the measure is considered to be so extensive that it cannot be carried out without affecting the distinctive character of the landscape, and that it will therefore be in conflict with the conservation objective.

The principles of environmental law have also been considered, and it is believed that there will be a risk of setting a precedent in other similar cases if a licence is granted [reeks like the law is not exactly well-written if even a small dirt road could, potentially, derail it]

---

Bottom Lines

Among the most infuriating sections of life under these conditions in Norway is the crappy way most journo™ stories are researched; yet, what’s arguably way worse is that public institutions are often arguing even (if that’s possible) worse and, in part, actively subverting the law.

I’m not making this allegation lightly, but let’s take the ‘dangerous precedent’ reasoning (sic) and see what §48 of the Biodiversity Law (orig. Lov om forvaltning av naturens mangfold, or naturmangfoldloven) says:

Administrative authorities can make exceptions to a protection decision if it does not conflict with the purpose of the protection decision and cannot significantly affect the conservation values, or if safety considerations or considerations of significant social interests make it necessary [see, there’s not a ‘dangerous precedent’, making such exceptions for the last farmer in Vigdalen is actually very well within the purview of the law; in fact, it’s the very first sentence of this section]

When weighing up other important public interests against the interests of the protected area, particular emphasis must be placed on the importance of the protected area for the overall network of protected areas and whether a similar protected area can be established or developed elsewhere. The proponent of the measure may be required to bear the reasonable costs of safeguarding, establishing, or developing such a similar area [that quite doesn’t apply to Oddvar Vigdal who merely wants to build a dirt road and not a power station].

If a measure requires authorisation under both the protection regulations and other legislation, the measure owner may choose to apply for authorisation in parallel. In such cases, decisions must first be made in accordance with the protection regulations [this is where the law goes bonkers: this wording affords the environmental authority the last word on virtually any measure] unless otherwise stipulated in the protection regulations or the consent of the administrative authority.

An application for an exemption under the first paragraph must contain the necessary documentation on the effect of the measure on the conservation values. In the case of an exemption pursuant to the first paragraph, the grounds for the decision must show how the administrative authority has assessed the effects that the exemption may have on the conservation values, and what emphasis has been placed on this [if what Sogn Avis reported is true, building a small dirt road isn’t really going to affect the preservation value of the area, esp. as they want farmers to be there—but they nevertheless denied Oddvar Vigdal’s application because…there’s no real reason given]

If you’d contrast these notions with the moronic stuff put out about the latest boondoggle—the road plus two bridges—where one literally noted the necessity of breaking eggs to make an omelette, I suppose we’re firmly in lala-land now.

Note that the most insidious aspect of that law is that it affords administrative authorities the last word. Hence, this is both an enabling act and an abrogation act (of parliament’s willingness to do self-governance).

We’ll see more and more of these kinds of pseudo-laws in the future, which will further erode what remains of participatory governance.

Until it’s all gone.